IMO they don't really think it through. I'm not a professional artist but I dabble in it and I don't plot things out. They don't turn out well if you do. Things kind of create themselves.
They go with the flow of emotions, trying to match the changes with the style the impose, sort of like smooth jazz
there must be some craft behind these emotions, because if there wasn't the emotions would come out crippled.
The best art is when the artist lets the influencing energy just flow uninhibited through them. They act as a mesmerized filter. The influence is changed by the very nature of the artist, not by the artist's conscious efforts. This captures the human struggle the best. I couldn't pick any of the choices. It is more a blend of all of them and yet none of them at the same time.
Yeah I kind of agree. So art school teaches you to just sit back and take the ride. And all of that crap that the are historians belch up is just as useless as the artist actually trying to think before they act. That's why it is so darn better to speak of someones work...after they are already dead?
Thing is, the artist's mind subconsciously makes actual connections through his work. It does mean something, whether or not the artist even knows it.
It depends on the artist and depends on the art. Dali said he would meditate to put himself into a "trance" of sorts, in which he would have grotesque visions. When he came out of it, he would try and paint what he saw in these waking dreams. Which is that? Dali was also an attention whore and played the crowd as much as he was an artist, so no one knows whether or not he was full of shit. Warhol (though I cringe to call him an artist) was most certainly very cognitive in his creation. Most all of them had a very specific point and goal. The same goes for the Dadaists. The whole object of Dadaism is to make some socio-political point.
I'm not sure. It seems to me that having a vision and wanting to recreate that vision as accurately as possible is very similar to just letting the art flow out of you without forethought. I mean, the vision came without forethought, right? And trying to make that vision as accurate as it is in the mind preserves its impulsiveness in a way. But I guess consciously trying to render that mental image is like a secondhand narration of it. Letting it flow as improvisation is like letting the audience see it as you see it--its more pure and raw.
It's really hard to tell. I must sweat for picture I make, but I'm always surprised when I see the final result. It's like I'm not the creator... Odd. But, I think that's the difference between true artists and those who are not. I think true artists should be able to see what they want to get from certain piece of canvas, rock or wood. Otherwise, if they just let their hands work without vision and if their raw idea leads the way, they stay amateurs forever. As myself.
